Order for Second Reading read.

Tom Harris: I understand the hon. Lady's frustration at that development. My view, but possibly not the Government's—although I suspect it is—is that it was right to recognise the significant announcements made by the IRA over the summer. In re-establishing the allowances, the Government formally recognised that the IRA and Sinn Fein are closely linked, but that, given what happened over the summer, denying the allowances could not continue to be justified. However, I accept that the hon. Lady will disagree.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned the word "capitulation" in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He knows better than anyone that the words we use in Northern Ireland debates matter a great deal. I am frustrated when debates are defined by language that, whether deliberately intended to or not, causes anxiety in a particular part of the community. For instance, why must every advance be described as a concession or a surrender? Progress in Northern Ireland cannot and should not be measured by assuming that every development of the peace process can be described as a concession, a snub or a gain in a column headed Unionist or nationalist.
	I finish by paying tribute to David Trimble, who as leader of the Ulster Unionist party delivered huge progress not only for the part of the community that he represented but for the whole community in Northern Ireland. He was, with John Hume, a well- deserved recipient of the Nobel peace prize. His absence from the House takes something away from our debates. Many Labour Members, while not necessarily agreeing with everything that he said during his career in this place, understood the huge contribution he made to peace in the Province. I hope that in a year or so I will be able to stand here and make similar comments about the hon. Member for North Antrim and the contribution that he may or may not make during the next year.

Mark Durkan: I regret that the House has to debate this Bill. Like many Members, I want normalisation in its full and most honest sense, so that we no longer need to have all sorts of special provisions or to talk about the reality of intimidation and the residual effects of so many years of paramilitary activity. Regrettably, we are not quite there yet. However, it is clear that only a very small minority in this House would prefer not to go forward with the legislation.
	I would have preferred the Government to be bolder and to put us on a firmer path to full and proper normalisation in judicial and criminal justice processes—the same path that we have been pursuing in relation to policing. My party and I agree with the Human Rights Commission, which believes, in relation to clause 1—which is essentially a rebadging of part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000—that we are at a point in Northern Ireland where we should be moving away from such provisions.
	I say that not because I believe that we are free from intimidation in Northern Ireland or because I am in any way naive or relaxed about the nature of paramilitary activities and the various hangover features of paramilitary life, but because we need to take the lead as democrats instead of constantly finding ourselves coming to this House beholden to the latest concession that the paramilitaries are supposedly giving us. We spend our time praising and thanking one paramilitary group for one statement and another paramilitary group for another, and find ourselves diffident about pursuing and applying our own democratic standards. In doing so, we turn things upside down. As constitutional democrats, we often find ourselves beholden to the latest initiative from the paramilitaries. We should be setting the terms, standards and pace of normalisation.
	I recognise that, as the Secretary of State said, in many ways the Bill connects back to aspects of the joint declaration of May 2003. However, I quibble with his saying that the joint declaration was generally endorsed by all the pro-agreement parties. Although there was general endorsement of some aspects of it, some of us had specific criticisms of other aspects. Some of us never went along with the pretence about having three annexes and two other documents that happened to coincide with them—one about on-the-runs and the other about sanctions that would be attached to the Independent Monitoring Commission. We never went along with the pretence that those documents were not annexes. In the all the talks before, during and since the Hillsborough talks on the joint declaration, including the talks in Leeds castle to which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has referred, we consistently pointed out to both Governments that they were turning a blind eye to the reality of continuing criminality.
	In recent interviews, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has acknowledged that the Social Democratic and Labour party was the one party consistently to raise concerns about criminality in his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That record of consistency on paramilitary and criminal activity is the background to our preference for not moving forward with this Bill.
	As we have seen in the case of the McCartney murder, the intimidation that gets in the way of justice in Northern Ireland involves the destruction of evidence and syndicated silence from witnesses. Some people make a big deal about calling on others to go to the police or the police ombudsman with statements, but such statements say little and many are not signed. The real issue in Northern Ireland with the administration of justice is not the difference between a Diplock court and a jury court but whether the evidence exists to take cases forward and whether people engage in conspiracies to deny, destroy and prevent evidence.
	In recent times, a number of cases have been taken to court after undoubtedly good work by the police service and after many brave people in the community have given information to the police. In some cases, people have been prepared to give evidence in court, only to find that the judge takes a much more relaxed and detached view of the crime in question than do the public.
	Juries should have been used in some recent cases, particularly those involving a number of loyalists who were charged with not only attacks on members of the nationalist community, but preying on their own community and businesses. Even after those people were convicted, the judge gave them suspended sentences, and they walked free. I am not talking about people who had committed a first offence or minor offences. I find it hard to tell people from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland who were offended and outraged by those decisions that we should maintain Diplock courts. People feel suspicious and iffy about some recent judicial outcomes, and about the concession-of-the-week mode in which we sometimes appear to be operating.

Mark Durkan: That is another matter. It is their choice.
	Discussions are in progress involving Sinn Fein—perhaps along with others—and the Government, on issues such as Community Restorative Justice. I know that the Minister sought to give some assurances about that last week, but what is the reality? A constituent of mine told me recently, "A man from CRJ came to my house, but when he said who he was, it brought three other initials to mind, and only the middle one—the R—was the same." She was very clear about that. Another constituent was apparently approached by someone supposedly representing Community Restorative Justice and told, "If you go to the police about this, you may have to leave the country."
	The Government are laying down provisions relating to abnormal arrangements in the courts, supposedly to deal with intimidation but they appear ready to license and engage with the very people who are behind intimidation connected with criminal activity, which is about creating an ulterior policing arrangement outside the formal and proper policing structures.

Gregory Campbell: I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about Community Restorative Justice. Can he not see the logic in suggesting, as we proceed through 2005 and into 2006, that caution should be the watchword whenever paramilitary groups—all paramilitary groups—are being dealt with?

William McCrea: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). As has already been indicated, we will support the Bill in the event of a Division.
	The Bill's title is "Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill", and terrorism has been a sad reality—constantly and continuously—in the lives of the people of Northern Ireland, in particular, for more than 30 years. We have witnessed the ravages of terrorism. We have seen what it has done to families, communities and society in general. However, let us never forget that behind each statistic on terrorism is a personal tragedy. Let us not forget the homes and families that have been destroyed because of terrorism in our Province. In not only the United Kingdom as a whole, but across the world, the reality of terrorism is gripping society. We see how it threatens civilised society throughout the world.
	The tragedy of Northern Ireland politics is that terrorists have been capitulated to and appeased for the past 30 years. The sad reality is that that capitulation and appeasement policy have not ended. The appeasement policy is continuing.
	I must confess that I am absolutely amazed by how gullible successive Governments can be. Whenever the IRA suggests that it will make a statement, it seems that democratic society is supposed to wait with bated breath and then hang on every word of a terrorist thug who makes a statement in the political arena. It is somehow seen that that changes the whole scene and that we must be thankful for it. Government Ministers have even praised the IRA, but for what? Do we thank the terrorists for stopping their terrorism? Are we supposed to thank them for no longer—at this present moment—showing the evidence that they are murdering and causing mayhem and destruction in our society?
	I say this without equivocation: terrorist organisations deserve no praise and no thanks from Members of this House. There was no justification whatsoever for their acts of terrorism over the past 35 years. There was no justification for leaving little children without a father. There was no justification for their terrorism, which robbed mothers of their children. Nor do they deserve any thanks because they say, "We are not going to continue our terrorist campaign at this moment. We are no longer going to destroy the lives and scatter the bodies of little children across society, the hills, the streets or the roads of Ulster." That is the sickening position that we are in—that somehow we are to praise them, to crawl to them and to make them acceptable in our society. That is what has been happening over the past weeks and months. I believe with all my heart that that is the sickening reality.
	The IRA seems to have got very sensitive. We had the decommissioning of its weapons, or at least those that were known about, and none of those were from 1996. It did not want photographs of that. It was not so sensitive when it allowed the cameras in for other reasons. The Government were happy that the cameras were present when they demolished the watchtowers. They were not as sensitive whenever the troops were taken out and were photographed getting on to the plane. The IRA was not as sensitive about the cameras outside the gates of the prison whenever the IRA terrorists got out as part of the Belfast agreement. It was, however, sensitive when it came to having independent witnesses endorsed by the community and having photographic evidence of the destruction of terrorist weaponry. That is why society in general in Northern Ireland is not jumping up and down but is cynical about what has happened with the IRA.
	Unionists are supposed to believe the IRA because it has made a statement. We are to believe Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, but for the past 35 years Adams and McGuinness denied being in the IRA's so-called army council. They were lying through their teeth. Now, whenever they say, "Ah, well now the war is over", we are supposed to believe that somehow this dishonest grouping has turned honest and that those who have shown no integrity are now people of integrity, decency and honesty within our society, and we supposed to bow in submission to them. That is something that the Unionist population will not be doing to the IRA or Gerry Adams. He was part of the IRA machine that committed murder and destroyed the lives of innocent people, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, in Northern Ireland.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I trust that it helps the Minister to exercise his mind when he comes to the Dispatch Box. The House should be careful in accepting the statements of republicans that terrorism is over when, in reality, it is continuing.
	Will the Minister also tell me who it was, since the IRA statement, who forced the McCartney family out of their house. They were not under threat of death by dissident republicans. They were threatened by the Provisional IRA. Since the IRA statement, the last of the family has had to move out of their home. It is a despicable thing. I give credit to the family for the courage that they have shown in standing up and demanding simple justice for their brother who was murdered. They were not asking for special treatment; they were asking that those who committed this foul and dastardly deed of murder be brought to justice. Yet there is a wall of silence, which is active not only in the Provisional IRA, but in the Provisional Sinn Fein movement in recent days. The IRA tells us that the war is over, so will the Minister tell us who threatened the McCartney family and made them leave their home after the IRA statement was made. That is important.
	Criminality is deeply ingrained in terrorist organisations right across the board, so will the Minister tell us whether any of the £26 million stolen in the Northern bank raid has been handed over now that the persons who organised it and were a part of it have now turned politician or democrat? Have they turned in the money, or is it, as many people say, the pension fund for provisionals who have been active over the years? We need a complete disbandment and dismantling of the IRA structures; nothing else will be accepted.
	We are saying to this House that yes, we will support the Bill, as it is essential for our Province at this time. The very fact that it is essential proves that the Government do not believe that terrorism is finished in Northern Ireland, but that the deep-seated terrorist philosophy that has been aided and abetted by many in society seems to be deeply ingrained.
	The more concessions that the Minister and his Government give to this terrorist organisation—the so-called now-turned-democrats of Sinn Fein-IRA—the more they put back any possibility of seeing structures within Northern Ireland. We will not be party to terrorism and terrorists by night, and politics and politicians by day. We want our Province to be rid of the scourge of all terrorism and turned into a prosperous Province that everyone can enjoy but in which only democrats can be allowed to enjoy the proceeds of democracy.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I have listened with interest to many contributions, particularly that of the Secretary of State. I welcome the renewal of this legislation. It is prudent for the Government to do so, because we continue to have a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland and do not yet live in an entirely normal society. That is evident, as several right hon. and hon. Members have said. I therefore join my colleagues in saying that we will vote for the Bill.
	Reference has been made to the process of normalisation. At the weekend, I read a commentary on the changes that have taken place in the police service in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the roles of the CID and special branch. There is concern that the police do not have sufficient resources and have been denied access to vital intelligence-gathering techniques in bringing successful prosecutions against terrorists in Northern Ireland. We saw a clear example in the robbery of the Northern bank, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). There was a lack of intelligence coming through to the police in advance of that robbery, which has secured a place in history as the largest bank heist ever to take place in the United Kingdom. I am afraid that that lack of intelligence is a direct consequence of some of the changes in policing. It is not that we do not want a normal police service—of course we do—but at times the speed of normalisation runs ahead of the reality on the ground as regards ongoing terrorist activity. The Government need to move carefully.
	Some of the changes in policing have undoubtedly brought benefits to the community. I have seen the benefits of community-style policing in my constituency. But I have also seen the enormous pressure that police resources come under as a result of the downsizing of the police service. It is very difficult for the police to balance and juggle all their competing priorities, and at times, unfortunately, situations are not fully and properly policed. That is regrettable.
	For the time being, the police continue to need the support of the Army—in particular, the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. That is why we believe that the announcement in August of the disbandment of the home service battalions, while having regard to their ongoing operational commitment, was at best premature and was unwelcome in terms of the message that it sent out, not least to the soldiers who serve in the home service battalions. I regret the manner in which they have been treated, and I particularly regret the manner in which the Government handled the announcement of the disbandment process. As I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, the mishandling of the announcement is being compounded by the fact that the soldiers are being kept in the dark about their future and are now being told that it could be January next year before they know what is going to happen in relation to redundancy packages and their options in terms of remaining in the Army and serving in Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable. I have urged the Secretary of State to see what he can do, and for our part we will see what we can do, to persuade the Secretary of State for Defence to move with more haste on this matter, while ensuring that the right package is offered to the soldiers.
	Policing, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) also mentioned, is a crucial issue in Northern Ireland. It would be entirely unacceptable to have in the Government of Northern Ireland a party that still refuses to support the police. I noted that in a recent interview Martin McGuinness said that it could not be a precondition of restoring the political institutions that Sinn Fein supports the police. Let me make it clear that for us it is a precondition of democracy that it is unacceptable for a party that is in government and is tasked with the responsibility of making and upholding the law to fail to support the forces of law and order. The Government must press home that point.
	I say to the Minister that we do not want to hear about more concessions being made to Sinn Fein on policing. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his party about the restorative justice scheme that Sinn Fein is pushing. That rings alarm bells right across the community in Northern Ireland, and the Government need to be very careful about how they proceed. If they are going to take the approach of making concessions to Sinn Fein on restorative justice or policing, they need not take it for granted that my party will continue to give support to such changes and sit by on the sidelines doing nothing. If the Government try to buy Sinn Fein's support for policing through such concessions, they need not assume that my party will continue to participate in policing institutions such as the Policing Board given that policing might be corrupted.
	The need for this legislation remains because of the ongoing activities of various paramilitary organisations. We do not yet know whether the statement made by the Provisional IRA at the end of July and the subsequent act of decommissioning, whatever that may have been, represent a complete end to the IRA's violence and criminality. We have rightly approached this issue with caution and scepticism given the manner in which the IRA has acted in the past when it has said one thing and contradicted its words with actions that are contrary to the rule of law. That applies, of course, to all paramilitary organisations. We urge all such organisations to move swiftly to declare an end to their violence and criminal activity and to accept that the only way forward in Northern Ireland is the path of peace and democracy. That is our consistent position, and we will continue to urge it.
	On the restoration of the political institutions, and in particular the Assembly, the Government must understand that we will not be prematurely pushed into government unless we are convinced that everyone involved is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which involves not only our being convinced, but the community that we represent being convinced. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who will soon be my right hon. Friend, has consistently said—the Prime Minister also said this at the Dispatch Box on an earlier occasion in reply to my hon. Friend—everyone must be satisfied that this time the restoration of the political institutions is for real. That includes the community, who must have sufficient confidence in the process. I regret that the IRA did not go further in its act of decommissioning and go the extra mile by creating transparency, which would have allowed people to see more clearly exactly what happened and how it happened.
	I agree with the former moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Dr. David McGaughey, about the role of the so-called independent witnesses, the two churchmen, whom he described as "observers" rather than "witnesses". Whether they are in a court of law or whether they are a character in a television programme, a witness normally provides testimony about what they have seen, but the two churchmen cannot do that, because their agreement with the IRA means that they cannot speak in detail. As Dr. McGaughey said, they acted as observers rather than witnesses, which we regret. If the IRA had gone further, it would have had a more positive impact on public confidence.
	I join other hon. Members in welcoming the appointment of Mrs. Bertha Mcdougall as the interim victims commissioner in Northern Ireland. I have known Mrs. Mcdougall for a number of years and worked with her when she chaired the Forgotten Families group, which represents pre-1982 RUC widows. I watched as she campaigned vigorously on behalf of those widows, and she is a good appointment and the right person to fulfil that difficult and challenging role. She will bring personal compassion and understanding to the job, because her husband, who was a RUC reservist, was murdered in Belfast by the Irish National Liberation Army. All hon. Members should welcome her appointment, and we wish her well in her difficult and challenging role. The task will not be easy, and she will undoubtedly have her critics, because it is difficult to deal with a large group of people with different perspectives, many of whom have different views of victimhood.
	I shall lay down a marker. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and I are responsible for liaising with victims groups, which I have met on a number of occasions. A victim is someone who has suffered as a result of terrorist violence or general violence in Northern Ireland, but they are not a perpetrator. A victim does not go out in the name of a paramilitary organisation and seek to take life and cause destruction, and the Government must understand that point. It would be totally unacceptable if the definition of "victimhood" were extended to embrace those who, whichever organisation they were associated with, were engaged in bringing hurt, pain and destruction to lives and property in Northern Ireland. The victims groups have made themselves clear on that point, and I know that they will put that view across to the Government and the new victims commissioner.
	I must make another point on behalf of victims in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has told us on many occasions that some aspects of the process are at times unpalatable, but that we must accept them because of the direction in which we are moving. The victims have had to accept a lot, and I know that the Secretary of State visited Lisburn in my constituency last week, where he met members of Families Achieving Change Together and the new victims commissioner. I know that the victims told him about their deep hurt and sense of injustice at things such as the release of the prisoners, the removal of the name, "Royal Ulster Constabulary" and other hurtful concessions. He should not underestimate victims' deep sense of injustice at the proposal that legislation should be introduced to provide terrorists who are on the run with something akin to an amnesty.
	The proposal to extend concessions to terrorists, whether or not they are IRA terrorists, who have fled the jurisdiction and who are fugitives from justice to allow them to come forward and confess to crime goes against the whole basis of justice. If the Government proceed down that line, they will besmirch justice and democracy in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. They must think carefully about the issue, which is very sensitive and has the potential to create a lot more hurt and pain for those who have suffered.
	It is one thing to lose one's loved one and live with years of hurt, pain and grief, but the Government will significantly compound that hurt if they proceed with a proposition that was not part of the Belfast agreement, that has never been voted for or endorsed by anyone in Northern Ireland and that does not, so far as I understand it, have the support of any of the democratic parties in Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will correct me if I am wrong. Even the Alliance party opposes that proposition, along with most of civil society.
	The Government must think carefully. If they believe that the IRA's campaign of violence and act of decommissioning is over, why are we making this biggest-of-all concessions? The Secretary of State must re-examine the issue, because it will set back political progress in Northern Ireland and damage community confidence. As I have said, this party's position is that unless people have confidence in the political process, we will not act prematurely and join a Government that does not have the confidence of the people whom we represent. The issue is important, and it has the potential to set back the day when the political institutions are restored, which I regret, because I want to see properly functioning, local, democratic government restored to Northern Ireland, but it will not be at the price of justice for the victims of terrorism. We will vigorously oppose legislation to help terrorists who are on the run, and I hope that such legislation will be opposed in the other place and that the Government have cause to rethink their approach.
	I welcome the Bill, although I hope that the need for it will have gone in the not-too-distant future because we have a truly peaceful, normal society. We genuinely want to see that happen, but we will not turn a blind eye to the reality that it has not happened on the ground and that it is still some way off. Instead of going down the road of further concessions to try to win the peace, which has not worked in the past, the Government must uphold the principles of democracy and justice in Northern Ireland and make it clear to the terrorists that their violence has no part in Northern Ireland's future and that the Government will not be tempted to seek to buy off those who have engaged in such violence. Every time they do that, it undermines the role of the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. It undermines the role of the hon. Member for Foyle just as much as it undermines the role of my party and its approach to politics in Northern Ireland.
	It is time that the Government stood beside the democrats and the democratic parties in Northern Ireland, and took account of the genuine fears and worries that persist in the community that we represent. I know that, in recent days, the Secretary of State has met people who have told him of those fears. I say to him, however, that it is one thing to listen, but another to understand and act on the things that he has heard. I hope that he will do that in the days that lie ahead.

Shaun Woodward: I was unaware of the dinner tomorrow night. I believe that such an issue would be a matter for Capitol Hill and not for this Government. However, if I can ascertain anything more for the hon. Gentleman in the next 24 hours, I will.
	I would like to thank the hon. Member for Belfast, North for his support for the Bill, which he described as "sensible". He rightly spoke of the need for caution, as did other Members, including the hon. Member for East Londonderry. We share that need for caution; we do not want to go ahead in a headlong rush. The hon. Member for Belfast, North and I disagree about the interpretation of the speed of the process. However, we do not disagree about the desire to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for East Londonderry raised a number of other issues, including policing in Northern Ireland. He was right to say that policing was central to the future there. Huge progress has been made, and there is more to be made. I agree with him that there is absolutely no place for paramilitaries to take up a place in the PSNI. That position was also firmly set out by Chris Patten in his report a few years ago.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim raised a number of issues, and I listened carefully to his impassioned speech. I respect him deeply, and I respect his sincerely held views, although I do not agree with his every interpretation. However, I certainly share his admiration and concern for the McCartney family. Let us be clear that intimidation and the crimes associated with it have no place in the future of Northern Ireland. That is the case irrespective of the quarter from which the intimidation comes, be it dissident republicans or the criminal behaviour of a small but significant number of so-called loyalists.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley made a deeply important speech, particularly referring to the Royal Irish Regiment. We should all recognise that the settlement that I believe and hope we shall be able to announce in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence in the months to come will owe a great deal to the hon. Gentleman's relentless work on the regiment's behalf.
	A number of issues have been raised in this debate. One that I have not yet referred to concerns the on-the-runs legislation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bring to the House at a later stage. On that, let me say simply one thing. A number of hon. Members have suggested that it might be a form of amnesty. That legislation will in no shape or form be an amnesty.
	We have to look ahead. The Government are mindful of their responsibilities for the future, but also for the present. The UK has some of the strongest and most effective counter-terrorism legislation in the world. That permanent framework protects the public against all forms of terrorism. It applies, and will continue to apply, equally to Northern Ireland and to the rest of the UK. In contrast, the part VII provisions remain a necessary and proportionate response to the particular security situation that has existed in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years.
	As the Secretary of State made clear when he opened this debate, there have been significant and historic developments in the past few months. These give rise to a realistic expectation that, within two years, a return to a normalised security environment might be achieved. At such a stage, the rationale for special security provisions for Northern Ireland would disappear. The Bill enables them to be repealed. However, we are not yet at that point. The initial signs are promising, but the Government will not take risks with the safety of the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore prudent to retain the part VII provisions until security normalisation has been realised. The Bill allows for that, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time

Christopher Fraser: May I too, compliment my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this debate? It comes at a time when health care provision in Norfolk is in crisis. We cannot forget that when constituents contact us about such issues, they are doing so in their hour of need. On those occasions when we need to go to hospital or to the doctor, we need to know that the service will be adequate, well provided for and funded correctly, so that we can receive the treatment that we deserve.
	May I draw the Minister's attention to my recent correspondence with the well-respected Swaffham and district pensioners association, which is concerned about the inevitable pressure on beds at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which serves my constituency? As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, we should not view such problems in isolation, because hospitals and health services in the area serve a large rural community. People are not well off and they suffer in many ways. How do they travel to the hospital or the doctors, and how do they secure the service that they want? We have drawn that issue to the Government's attention in the past. When people arrive at hospital, they should be confident that it is well funded and well maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk said, people who work in the health service in Norfolk are unsung heroes who work jolly hard in difficult circumstances. It is our duty as their parliamentary representatives to make that point, because when times are hard the tough get going, even though that is not always acknowledged by the press and the media. I therefore hope that the Government will take my hon. Friend's observations into account.
	The Swaffham and district pensioners association would like an assurance that plans are in place to deal with
	"a crisis waiting to happen".
	I hope that the Minister can alleviate their concerns. May I also draw his attention to the problem of cutbacks in hospitals in my constituency? At Thetford cottage hospital some clinical services have been withdrawn, and five wards are currently closed. Local people and staff are concerned about the prospect of further cuts, so I hope that the Minister can provide an assurance that they will not be made. There is a great deal of concern about the availability of beds for the long-term elderly sick at Swaffham community hospital. It was full in July, which does not bode well for availability in the winter months when demand could reach a peak. The weather is not as bad as it could be at this time year, but a harsh winter is predicted. Many elderly and vulnerable people in my constituency are worried about the provision of health care, and it is in their hour of need that we ask for an assurance so that everyone in Norfolk who is entitled to use the services that my colleagues and I have raised can go to bed comforted in the knowledge that the Government will ensure that there is a proper provision and financing of health care in Norfolk now and in future.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because we must separate two points: the total money available in the local health economy and the efficacy of the management of local hospital organisations. Sometimes, those two things are not exactly the same, as I hope to underline in the following remarks.
	A range of measures show that it is possible to pay back the deficit without having an impact on quality care. In passing, I would tell Swaffham and district pensioners association that plans are in place to ensure that quality care not only continues at its current level but continues to improve.
	Queen Elizabeth hospital management have now introduced a number of commonsense measures to meet their financial targets for this year. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned changes to some of the wards. Patients discharged from Dereham ward, as part of a service reconfiguration, are now successfully cared for by far closer partnership working with other agencies, such as social services. There have been no readmissions of those patients, who are now cared for in a far more appropriate way. The hospital has achieved more than £2 million in savings this year from initiatives such as better bed management and discharge processes that lead to a reduction in the number of bed days. It has opened a new operations room to monitor bed management and emergency care that is linked to other rehabilitation and community beds and the East Anglian ambulance trust network, so patients receive far more appropriate care and the discharge process is much faster.
	The whole discharge process has been reviewed. Significant work has been undertaken, with the aim of taking inefficiencies out of the current process and reducing the lengths of stay where it is safe to do so. The hon. Members who have taken part in the debate will know that, when compared with other hospitals in the region, elective lengths of stay are about half a day longer and that non-elective stays are about one and a half to two days longer. Of course that will be influenced by the higher than national average proportion of older people in their constituencies, but the number of bed days is greater none the less. In fact, a detailed investigation across all specialities has been produced recently that identifies a number of initiatives that can safely reduce the number of bed days required to almost 20,000 per annum.
	On further reducing the rate of sickness, last year sickness cost the trust about £4.5 million, and there is a continuation of existing initiatives to reduce that. Out-patient follow-ups still require attention. Changing practices surrounding follow-ups to reduce out-patient attendances is important because rates of follow-ups for new appointments are higher than average. The introduction of digital imaging will help to save money. At the moment, the trust spends almost £250,000 on film for X-rays. Distributing X-rays electronically will save money. Savings are possible in respect of operations on acute wards because lengths of stay will reduce as a result of more appropriate discharge activities. Finally—although this is not the entire list—payment by results, which is an important reform designed to build on the changes already in place, will help Queen Elizabeth hospital because its reference costs are good.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned Wells hospital and intermediate beds. If he will permit me, I will look into that because I do not have chapter and verse in front of me. In the meantime, I can tell him that the forthcoming White Paper on primary care will put a much stronger emphasis on care closer to home and very much recognise that such things are often important sources of local pride.
	Before I conclude my remarks, I want to deal head-on with the charge that has been levied. Gone are the days when we can simply write off debt. The Department of Health has ensured that there is a great deal of time to allow the trust—in conjunction with the NHS bank and, ultimately, with the Department—to agree a plan to manage the cash position for the remainder of the year. The fact is that similar agreements must be reached with other parts of the NHS because solutions to cash problems in local trusts can be managed only by securing cash underspends in other organisations. Overspending must be matched by underspends elsewhere in the NHS. The arrangements we are discussing are intended to provide a strong incentive for the NHS to avoid deficits. The rules have been in place for several years and NHS trusts are well aware of the consequences of running up a deficit.
	The administrative device in question is called the surplus incentive scheme. It was introduced in September 2005 and is managed by the NHS bank. Arrangements with NHS trusts or primary care trusts are for individual strategic health authorities to manage. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk was an adviser to business in a former life, so he understands the concept of the cost of capital well and will, I suspect, have advised people on it. I disagree with his analysis that the rate charged is penal. He will know that the cost of lending reflects the cost of capital, and in this case the charge reflects the cost of capital from within the system. A new management team can rarely quite wipe a slate clean and nor should it be allowed to wipe a balance sheet. A team should be given time to make good a situation that it has been hired to fix, which is why the trust has been given until 2007 to repay the specific part of the deficit.